Question on Warding Stave clarification

[DarthOvious]

Hi,

 

I was wondering if you could help me clarify a rule in regards to the Grey Knight Warding Stave.

 

The following is a scenario which took place and there was confusion in regards to how many invulnerable saves could be allocated to the Warding Stave.

 

A unit of Wolf Guard Terminators all armed with Power Axes assaulted a unit of Grey Knights inlcuding Draigo and some Paladins with a Warding Stave in the unit. The Warding Stave was in base contact with two of the Wolf Guard Terminators. The Wolf Guard Terminators caused 16 wounds in total at AP2 on the unit of Paladins and Draigo (no challenges involved).

 

The disagreement was in regards to how many of the resulting invulnerables saves could be allocated to the warding stave whilst he is alive. Is the Paladin with the Warding Stave allowed to take invulnerable saves for all the wounds, one at a time until he dies, with the remaining wounds being passed onto the rest of the squad or is he only allowed to take saves from the two Wolf Guard Temrinators in base contact with him.

 

I was under the impression that it was the former that applied but I was overruled by a blue shirt and so I could only take four of those wounds on the Warding Stave. I was lucky to make some invulnerables and feel no pains, so I still won the combat but I need to clartify this for future games.

 

Thanks in advance

 

DO

[Gentlemanloser]

In CC, the wounds must be allocated to the closest mini.

 

If Draigo was closer to some than the guy with the Warding Stave, Draigo would have to take those.

 

Edit: Then there's Look out, Sir! of course.

 

Edit2: It's all there on Page 25.

 

Those in base contact need to take the wounds first (ties, the controlling player decides), then the rest move on to the next closest (agian ties decided by the controlling player).

[DarthOvious]

In CC, the wounds must be allocated to the closest mini.

 

If Draigo was closer to some than the guy with the Warding Stave, Draigo would have to take those.

 

Edit: Then there's Look out, Sir! of course.

 

Edit2: It's all there on Page 25.

 

Those in base contact need to take the wounds first (ties, the controlling player decides), then the rest move on to the next closest (agian ties decided by the controlling player).

 

OK.

 

Can I ask what is meant by this paragraph on page 25?

 

"Once a model has a wound allocated to it, you must continue to allocate wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the wound pool is empty"

 

Is it just the way I'm reading this? Because when I read this it seems to me that if I allocate the first wound to the Paladin with the warding stave, then he must take the wounds from the wound pool until he dies or until they run out.

 

Sorry if I seem a bit confused by this, but I just want to make sure I know what I'm doing in future because placing the warding stave will become vitally important in future games either way.

[IndigoJack]

Yup, that part is just like shooting. The closest model will always take wounds until he's dead or passes all his saves. If he dies, it moves on to the next closest. It's often why you see ICs with a good save lead around plastic men with a worse save. They act as a tank and shield the rest of the squad. It's also the reason the warding stave has mad it's way into many lists.

[Gentlemanloser]

The Paladin with the staff must take the wounds form the group allocated to him as being the closest *for that group*.

 

 

A \flound must be allocated to an enemy model in base
contact with a model aftacking at that Initiative step.

 

If you have both Draigo and the Warding Stave Pally in B2B with different attackers, they both get wounds allocated to them.  You resolve each wound 'group' seperately.

 

Check out the Assault Marine/Ork example.

[Captain Idaho]

That's not quite true. If you have the Warding Staff Paladin and Draigo both in base contact with models striking at that initiative step then you get to decide which takes the wounds first. If you had a model striking at I4 in contact with just Draigo and not the Paladin then you'd need to prioritise Draigo as he's in base contact with models striking at that initiative step.

[Gentlemanloser]

If you have the Warding Staff Paladin and Draigo both in base contact

with models striking at that initiative step then you get to decide

which takes the wounds first.

 

Only if they're in B2B with the same attackers.

 

If it's different attackers (as I mentioned above) they have to have wounds to both of them, from the individual atackers that are in B2B with them individually.  And you roll these simultaniously, if you wish.

 

(I and my group are of the personal opinion that 6th edition has *really* messed uped the wound allocation rules, making them slow and counter intuitive, just to try to 'fix' wound allocation shenangians...)

 

Especially as to know which attacks that hit and wound have to be allocated to which in B2B means you have to roll your attacks seperately...

 

/sigh

[Brother Maikel]

Wound allocation is actually pretty simple.  It may take a while with large numbers of wounds and models that have different saves, but its not actually that much worse than wound allocation from 5th ed.

 

All wounds generated by a unit at each initiative step are grouped into a single wound pool.  Then the model that starts taking those wounds is the enemy model that is closest to any model that attacked at that Initiative step.  Models in base-to-base are considered equidistant, and the controlling player determines which one is "closer".  This model then takes wounds from the wound pool until he dies or the wound pool is empty.  Once the model dies, a new closest model is determined with the same rules, and wound allocation continues.

for example:

P2 ( X X X )
P1 ( 1 2 3 4 )
P2 ( A A A A B C D E )

all of P1's models strike at I4 and direct all of their attacks at the lower unit.  Once they've rolled to-hit and to-wound, any generated wounds are put into the same pool.  Player 2 then may select any model labeled "A" to start taking wounds, since all are in base contact with a model that struck I4.  Once all of the "A" models are dead, then wounds would be allocated to "B", "C", "D", and "E", in that order.  It doesn't matter which of P1's models had an AP2 weapon, or which attacks had "Instant Death", the wounds all get allocated the same way.

 

The only time that matters is when allocating the attacks in the first place.  If models 1-3 are Purifiers with Swords and model 4 is Draigo, the Purifiers may allocate attacks to either unit "A-E" or unit "X", while Draigo must allocate all of his attacks to unit "A-E".  Furthermore, unlike 5ed, Independent Characters are no longer considered separate units when attacking: they remain attached to whatever squad they were a part of and are allocated wounds as though they were just another normal member of that squad.

 

Also, so far as I can tell, there is one wound pool that contains every wound a unit takes in a single assault phase, so, for example, if Unit "X" and unit "A-E" strike at I5, then any of the models in P1's unit could be considered the closest, as they are all in B2B with a model that struck at I5.  Thus Draigo (or your Warding Stave Paladin) could tank every single wound if he wanted to and survived long enough.

[Gentlemanloser]

Actually, after rereading everything, I was wrong. lol.

There is only one wound group per I step. I guess that will speed up our assault phases a bit.

Edit: This also makes the Warding Stave quite more interesting an option... Just make sure to get it into B2B.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Hah, how amusing. I too shall be adding in warding staves more often now. 

[IndigoJack]

Yeah, the new wound allocation rules for assault really made the warding stave a viable option now.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Thank you based Ward. Always thinking ahead to 6th meta

[Gentlemanloser]

Blessed Ward? :P

 

Seriously, 25 points for a Melee Weapon that doesn't impact your shooting, but allows you to assign *every* wound you take in CC to it (until you roll that 1 and the mini dies...) is a solid option now.  As long as you make sure the mini is in B2B.

 

And I generally would never have touched one in 5th.

 

Of course, if you're not getting hit by power weapons, you assign all the wounds to the 3+ (hopefully 2+...) armour save mini that's also in B2B instead.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Blessed Ward?

That too. Enjoy your mind expansion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K8lEFnFqcU

Seriously, 25 points for a Melee Weapon that doesn't impact your shooting, but allows you to assign *every* wound you take in CC to it (until you roll that 1 and the mini dies...) is a solid option now. As long as you make sure the mini is in B2B.

And I generally would never have touched one in 5th.

Of course, if you're not getting hit by power weapons, you assign all the wounds to the 3+ (hopefully 2+...) armour save mini that's also in B2B instead.

Doesn't impact melee either, its still AP3.

I dunno. It's still pretty cornercase. I guess I'd chuck it on Paladins, or Terminators. Maybe on a Flame Knight. Not on Strikes or Interceptors though.

[Gentlemanloser]

LoL!

 

Gonna listen to that properly when my Daughter is in bed tonight.  Don't want her overhearing! :P

[Valerian]

Almost a year into 6e now and we are still figuring out how close combat works. Too funny :)

[Aethernitas]

Almost a year into 6e now and we are still figuring out how close combat works. Too funny

I find it rather sad. How are we supposed to discuss 'advanced' things like tactics and list building if some don't even bother to make sure they play by the most basic and important (and straightforward written) rules?

[Brother Maikel]

Almost a year into 6e now and we are still figuring out how close combat works. Too funny

I find it rather sad. How are we supposed to discuss 'advanced' things like tactics and list building if some don't even bother to make sure they play by the most basic and important (and straightforward written) rules?

To be fair, those rules aren't the most straightforward. They make some references to wound allocation in the shooting section, redefine what goes in the wound pool, and the rules for combat between more than two units are in yet a third section. Toss in the substantial changes from how it worked in 5th, GW's penchant for mixing abstraction levels, the mess that are their "fast dice" rules and the changes they've made via FAQ and I'm not surprised people are doing it less-than-correctly.

Heck, I'm still not 100% sure whether you're supposed to group wounds by AP/Str/Special Rules like you do in the shooting phase, and if not, how you're supposed to handle them. The book makes no mention of it in the Assault Phase chapter, and the only reference to the shooting phase is in how you determine which model to allocate wounds to, not the order those wounds get allocated. It seems obvious that GW's intent is that they behave the same, but by RAW I'm not sure they do.

Gah, if only GW would hire a single technical editor, a lot of this ambiguity would go away.

[Gentlemanloser]

 

I find it rather sad. How are we supposed to discuss 'advanced' things
like tactics and list building if some don't even bother to make sure
they play by the most basic and important (and straightforward written)
rules?

 

/shrug

 

To be honest, I dont think *anyone* would claim that 6th isn't all about the shooting, and assault has been left far behind.  Myself, and the guys I play with have been moving away from Assault based lists (wet with the tears of our Deldar player and his dual WWP list), and to be honest Assaults are rarely seen.

 

If they are, it's mopping up small units, and units run aren't designed with Assault in mind.

 

My units are usually so similar, this hasn't really been a factor in any of the games I've played, and to be honest we've glossed over it for speed.

 

Challenges are made for the lulz, and armies are wiped off the board by the strength of thier opponents shooting.

[Lysere]

Meanwhile I still charge headlong across the table with 50 BT lead by Grimmy while tanks annihilate any semblance of defense just so I can declare several charges at once and pop a relic for some incredibly awesome marine assaults.

 

Then again that is how I always like to do things these days.

 

Keep in mind the enemy picks which set of wounds you take (grouped by saves needed or whatever) but with a model with 2+ armor and invuln it matters much less. Especially when you can add FNP.

[Gentlemanloser]

With an Allied GKGM to make your Assault Termies Scoring, right?

(We don't have any BT players, I'd actually like to face them run seriously!)

[dswanick]

 

To be honest, I dont think *anyone* would claim that 6th isn't all about the shooting, and assault has been left far behind.  Myself, and the guys I play with have been moving away from Assault based lists (wet with the tears of our Deldar player and his dual WWP list), and to be honest Assaults are rarely seen.

 

If they are, it's mopping up small units, and units run aren't designed with Assault in mind.

 

My units are usually so similar, this hasn't really been a factor in any of the games I've played, and to be honest we've glossed over it for speed.

 

Challenges are made for the lulz, and armies are wiped off the board by the strength of thier opponents shooting.

I'm guessing you don't have many Tyrannid players in your area ... ones who like stuffing their list full of FMCs and Tervigons.

[Lysere]

 

 

To be honest, I dont think *anyone* would claim that 6th isn't all about the shooting, and assault has been left far behind.  Myself, and the guys I play with have been moving away from Assault based lists (wet with the tears of our Deldar player and his dual WWP list), and to be honest Assaults are rarely seen.

 

If they are, it's mopping up small units, and units run aren't designed with Assault in mind.

 

My units are usually so similar, this hasn't really been a factor in any of the games I've played, and to be honest we've glossed over it for speed.

 

Challenges are made for the lulz, and armies are wiped off the board by the strength of thier opponents shooting.

I'm guessing you don't have many Tyrannid players in your area ... ones who like stuffing their list full of FMCs and Tervigons.

 

Don't forget Daemon Players, and primarily Khorne Daemon players. Our local daemon player has at minimum 3 FMC, one of which is his bloodthirster.

[Gentlemanloser]

I'm guessing you don't have many Tyrannid players in your area ... ones who like stuffing their list full of FMCs and Tervigons.

Nope.

No one touched them since the last dex, and 6th hasn't really tempted them back. Sad really, as one of our guys used to love the 'nids.

Don't forget Daemon Players, and primarily Khorne Daemon players. Our

local daemon player has at minimum 3 FMC, one of which is his

bloodthirster.

I think I've mentioned on length our old hardcore Daemon player wouldn't touch the new dex with a barge pole! The only time I expect to face and Daemon GD/DPs is when allied to a Helldrake based CSM list.

Edit: Besides, the Assaults of single MC units doesn't really highlight the Assault wound allocation rules. They only really become apparant in mixed units.

[Lysere]

I don't know what people have against the Daemon Codex, it's a lot of fun to play against, and the Daemon players I know seem to be enjoying it a lot.

 

Tell him to suck it up and try the thing already. You need some assault armies in your store to remind people just how brutal it is.